Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
How do we hide our eth from the fork that’s starting
4 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
This is an interesting idea to achieve: https://www.nouns.camp/candidates/stake-1k-in-rounds-32d1a53f6709a03f4b6cf4cb0501204ba188d4f5
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Not necessarily against but seems too ultra bullish on rounds. I’m thinking something that can be reversed, similar to buying alien punk just to temporarily diversify assets
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
醓 pfp
醓
@pip
could send me the eth and ill send it back when this has blown over
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
How much interest
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Spencer Perkins pfp
Spencer Perkins
@spencerperkins.eth
Agreed. But, of all the existing project to stake into, its probably the best. It sets aside means to fund builders via rounds and is outside of the control of the DAO. Jokes aside, what @pip said is valid, could be expectations of Rounds returning these funds after a fork. It is quire tricky tho, basically what is being asked for is a way to move funds out of the treasury into a holding account, which can somehow be recaptured later. The problem is that this goes against the whole purpose of the fork, majority can move all funds to this holding account and forkers would get nothing. In the case the forkers are not just arbers looking to exit, and are an honest minority who want to continue, they get screwed. Might as well just disable the fork if we are going to move funds into holding to shelter them.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea I mean I’d be down to disable to fork too I think that’s definitely the better option. I dont think honest minority protection is worth it when that’s mostly a hypothetical and what’s not a hypothetical is nouns getting drained by arbers for the 3rd (4th?) time
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
krel pfp
krel
@krel
what if you and me are the honest minority forced to fork one day to escape the rule of [xyz]
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea I understand the point but it feels like prematurely optimizing for this “what if” at the cost of the very real absolute certainty that the arbers are going to rob a huge majority of the treasury (which did happen). IMO it’s not worth the trade off to have honest minority protection at the treat of certain arb. I understand what it’s for I just don’t think it’s worth it personally. Everything’s a trade off
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
krel pfp
krel
@krel
im kinda sympathetic to this view but shake out on the side that the arber leak is worth it it was 100% worth it 1 year ago when the arbers did their best to suffocate the project -- wouldve gladly paid them an even bigger sum to leave (and the sum was not that big all things considered) granted, this recent arber cohort is much less chaos monkish so it doesnt feel as important to "exit them"
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog) pfp
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Yea tbf I wasn’t as active in nouns during this stage so I didn’t feel it as acutely. To me it just looks like this giant pool of money vanished with no upside but I can see how it’s nice to have those voters out. I also like having a giant pool of t-nouns to do cool stuff with
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
krel pfp
krel
@krel
it was really close to death of the project id say i dont have the numbers to back it up atm but iirc the actual loss wasnt that big (arbers mostly took out what they had put in) but again, i dont think youre wrong per se, its just that i fall slightly on the other end of the spectrum
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions